CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 13-14-00667-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2015

in the Estate of Mildred Ozella Favor Pursley A.K.A. Mildred F. Pursley

Rocky Pursley appealed the probate court's summary judgment which imposed a constructive trust on Mildred F. Pursley's estate. Rocky argued that Mildred's 1975 joint will with her deceased husband was not a contractual will, or if it was, Mildred's later 2007 will and 2010 codicil did not breach its terms. The Court of Appeals reviewed the interpretation of the 1975 will, affirming that it created a life estate for the surviving spouse and a class gift to all children upon the survivor's death, thereby making it a contractual will. The court found that Mildred's subsequent will and codicil, which favored only two of the three children, circumvented the terms of the 1975 contractual will. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to impose a constructive trust to enforce the 1975 will's provisions.

Estate LawContractual WillJoint WillLife EstateClass GiftSummary JudgmentProbate LawWill ConstructionTestamentary IntentAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02855 [183 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2020

Spencer v. Term Fulton Realty Corp.

Plaintiff, a carpenter, was injured while working when a cart he was pushing got stuck on iron rods and debris, pinning and severing his index finger. He brought claims under Labor Law § 200, § 241 (6), and common-law negligence against the defendants. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing claims against Bravo Builders, LLC. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the cited Industrial Code sections inapplicable to the incident. However, the court modified the order to reinstate the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Bravo, determining that Bravo failed to establish a prima facie lack of constructive notice regarding the dangerous worksite conditions, especially given its contractual obligation for daily inspections.

Construction accidentLabor LawPremises liabilitySummary judgmentConstructive noticeIndustrial CodeComparative negligenceDangerous conditionWorksite safetyAppellate review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Bayer Corp. Long Term Disability Plan

Plaintiff Terry Smith, a former Diabetes Sales Specialist for Bayer Corporation, filed an action under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits, claiming wrongful denial due to psychiatric impairments including depression, panic disorder, and bi-polar disorder. The Plan administrator, Bayer, upheld the denial based on reviews by non-examining physicians. However, Smith's treating psychiatrists, Dr. LeBuffe and Dr. McCool, consistently found him disabled. The court found the Plan's reliance on non-examining doctors, who 'cherry-picked' medical records and distorted findings, to be arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court granted Smith's motion for benefits, denying Bayer's, and also awarded partial disability benefits, ruling that Smith's failure to seek rehabilitation approval was excused by the prior wrongful denial.

ERISALong-term disabilityDisability benefits denialPsychiatric impairmentDepressionPanic disorderBi-polar disorderAttention Deficit Disorder (ADD)Treating physician ruleArbitrary and capricious standard
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Bee Line, Inc.

The plaintiffs initiated an action to secure an injunction preventing the defendants, including Bee Line, Inc., from forming and implementing an agreement regarding the employment terms for maintenance staff. Initially, the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction was granted. However, this order was subsequently reversed on both legal and factual grounds, leading to the denial of the motion. The court determined there was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendants' ongoing negotiations violated the plaintiffs' existing contractual rights, noting that any proposed contract might be for a period commencing after the plaintiffs' contract concluded in November 1941. Furthermore, the court identified the situation as a labor dispute, as defined by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, and found that the necessary conditions for issuing an injunction in such a dispute had not been satisfied.

injunctionlabor disputecontractual rightsemployment agreementpendente liteCivil Practice ActBee Line Inc.appellate reviewmotion deniedmaintenance employees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2011

Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions, Inc. v. Essex Insurance

Plaintiff Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions commenced a declaratory judgment action against Defendant Essex Insurance Company, seeking an order to defend and indemnify Avrio in a personal injury action. Essex filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court addressed two main exclusions: the Completed Operations Exclusion and the Contractual Liability Exclusion. The court found a potentiality of coverage under the Completed Operations Exclusion due to ambiguities in the term "intended use" and unresolved factual issues regarding the completion of work, denying summary judgment on this ground. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex regarding the Contractual Liability Exclusion, as the subcontract did not qualify as an "insured contract" under the policy's specific definition in effect at the time of the incident, and Avrio was presumed to have agreed to these terms. The case will proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the Completed Operations Exclusion.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContractual Liability ExclusionCompleted Operations ExclusionInsurance Policy InterpretationChoice of LawMaryland Contract LawFederal Civil ProcedureDuty to Defend
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust

The third-party defendant, Plaster Master, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law on a contractual indemnification claim. The lower court had found Plaster Master contractually obligated to indemnify Kimco Realty Services, Inc., the general contractor, in a case stemming from a personal injury lawsuit by a Plaster Master employee. The appellate court found the indemnification provision in the contract, drafted by Kimco, to be ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarifying parol evidence, the court resolved the ambiguity against Kimco. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted Plaster Master's motion, and dismissed Kimco's third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Contractual IndemnificationAmbiguity in ContractParol EvidenceConstruction LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityMeeting of the MindsThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. General Dynamics Long Term Disability Benefits Plan

Thomas E. Martin, a former General Dynamics employee, filed a lawsuit under ERISA against General Dynamics Long Term Disability Plan, General Dynamics Corporation, and Aetna Life Insurance Company. Martin claimed improper calculation of his long-term disability (LTD) benefits, arguing that the defendants wrongly deducted his workers' compensation and Social Security benefits. The central issue was the commencement date of Martin's total disability, as the Plan's terms allowed deductions if these other benefits were not received immediately prior to disability onset. The court, applying an abuse of discretion standard, determined that the defendants' decision to set Martin's disability onset date as May 10, 1990, the day he ceased working, was not arbitrary or capricious. This finding supported the defendants' deductions. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Martin's claims. An earlier motion by Lockheed Corporation was denied as moot.

Summary judgmentERISALong term disability benefitsBenefit calculationDisability onset dateAbuse of discretion standardFederal courtPlan interpretationEmployee benefitsDisability insurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Steuben

CSEA appealed an order that denied confirmation of an arbitrator's award and granted the County's cross-petition to vacate it. The dispute stemmed from a public employment contract concerning mileage reimbursement between CSEA and the County. The County changed its mileage policy, prompting CSEA to file a grievance, arguing that a 'past practice' had effectively modified the contract's terms. The arbitrator agreed with CSEA, but the Special Term vacated the award, ruling that the contract's language on mileage reimbursement was clear and unambiguous, rendering any past practice irrelevant. The appellate court affirmed the Special Term's decision, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by relying on matters outside the explicit contractual agreement, thereby creating a new contract for the parties.

ArbitrationPublic Employment ContractMileage ReimbursementPast PracticeContract InterpretationArbitrator's PowerVacatur of AwardCPLR Article 75Collective Bargaining AgreementUnambiguous Contract Terms
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

This case involves a labor union's petition to compel a company to arbitrate four grievances. Special Term initially directed arbitration for two grievances and dismissed one, leading to appeals from both parties. For grievance 2079-A, concerning incentive pay changes, the court reversed Special Term, finding the issue non-arbitrable due to specific contractual clauses. For grievance 1971-C, regarding an employee's discharge and rehire refusal, the court affirmed Special Term, ruling that discharge is arbitrable and issues like laches are for the arbitrator. For grievance 2286-G-, concerning bargaining agent representation, the court affirmed dismissal, concluding it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementIncentive PayWage RatesEmployee DischargeLachesUnion RepresentationNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Rodrigues, an employee of Caldas Concrete Company, Inc., was injured at a construction site. Plaintiffs commenced an action against the property owner and N & S Building Contractors, Inc., which in turn initiated a third-party action against Caldas for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed N & S's contractual indemnification claim against Caldas. N & S appealed this dismissal, arguing the agreement provided for indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the indemnification clause did not unambiguously cover injuries sustained by Caldas employees.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 241(6)Third-Party ActionConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor IndemnityGrave InjuryStrict Construction
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,329 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational